TERRY WILLIAM SALIVA, PETITIONER,
v.
CYNTHIA L. NOLIN, RESPONDENT

Fla. 2d DCA | 2004-10-15
No. 2D04-593
CASANUEVA, J„ and GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge, Concur.
884 So. 2d 1075 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2004)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The appeal is moot because the ex parte temporary injunction for protection has expired.


Facts & Procedural History

A former wife filed an emergency motion for an injunction for protection against her former husband, and the court entered an ex parte order restricti…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
NORTHCUTT, Judge.

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Terry W. Saliva filed a petition for writ of prohibition, which we treat as an appeal of a nonfinal order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). Saliva and his former wife, Cynthia L. Nolin, were divorced in 1994. In a separate action filed in 2003, Nolin petitioned to terminate Saliva’s parental rights as to the parties’ child pursuant to section 39.806, Florida Statutes (2003). She also filed an “Emergency Motion to Suspend Respondent’s Contact and Visitation with Minor Child, and For Issuance of Restraining Order (Injunction for Protection) Against Respondent.” The circuit court entered an ex parte order providing that “[i]f the Father has a request for contact, he must bring that request before the Court prior to attempting contact with the mother or the child.”

Saliva sought a writ of prohibition, contending that this order improperly altered his visitation rights. It is clear, however, that the order did not modify the parties’ final judgment of dissolution of marriage or any visitation order flowing therefrom. Rather, the court entered an ex parte injunction for protection pursuant to its authority under section 784.046, Florida Statutes (2003).

We note that the court should have denied the motion because Nolin failed to comply with the procedural prerequisites set forth in the statute. However, section 784.046(6)(c) provides that an ex parte temporary injunction for protection shall be effective for a fixed period not to exceed fifteen days. The order at issue here was entered on January 29, 2004. Although the order did not indicate when the temporary injunction would expire and did not schedule a date for a return hearing as required by the statute, it is clear from the record before this court that the injunction has expired. Therefore, this appeal is moot.

Appeal dismissed.

CASANUEVA, J„ and GREEN, OLIVER L., Senior Judge, Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw